D&D 3.x [3.5] Weapon size and use

[MeepoTheMighty]

I like the change, because it implies that humans aren't the only ones making weapons.

Originally posted by Rav
The real fun is in proficiencies given by classes. Halfling rogues now use Small Shortswords... which do 1d4. Gnomish Druids have 1d4 scimitars.

But halfling rogues also use small longswords, which do 1d6. Instead of a rogue's weapon proficincies listed as "A, B, C, and D, plus X, Y, and Z if the character is Medium-sized," the proficiencies are just listed as "A, B, C, D, X, Y, and Z" and the sizing sorts itself out.

And while druid proficiencies are wonky to begin with, it doesn't make sense that a 3.0 gnome druid should be able to use a scimitar two-handed, but a human druid can't use a falchion. Now they both just use appropriately-sized scimitars.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

I like the change, because it implies that humans aren't the only ones making weapons.



But halfling rogues also use small longswords, which do 1d6. Instead of a rogue's weapon proficincies listed as "A, B, C, and D, plus X, Y, and Z if the character is Medium-sized," the proficiencies are just listed as "A, B, C, D, X, Y, and Z" and the sizing sorts itself out.

And while druid proficiencies are wonky to begin with, it doesn't make sense that a 3.0 gnome druid should be able to use a scimitar two-handed, but a human druid can't use a falchion. Now they both just use appropriately-sized scimitars.

This could have been much more easily fixed by saying that a druid can use a 1 handed scimitar or rogue can use a 1 handed sword. It really didn't require a completely new weapons system.

--Simple Spikey

 

[MadScientist]

Spikey, as I understand it the answer is no. A small character would weild a medium longsword with 2 hands and suffer a -2 penalty to their attacks.

The only compelling reason that I have heard for this change is that it will be simpler for new players. IMO though this is fixing something that wasn't broken. I have some experience with this because my gaming group of six people consists of three people who have played DnD for years, one who was completely new to RPing, one who was a LARPer (but never table topped), and one ex-vampire player.

There were many rules that gave the new players problems; spell levels was one (.. but I'm second level, why can't I cast second level spells?) they really should use a term other than level, like spell circle or something; the bonus stacking rules still cause some problems (I can't use mage armor if I have a chain shirt!); grappling needs to re-explianed all the time. The weapon size and handedness has never been a problem for us though. Even the new players picked it up pretty quickly. If we do switch to 3.5 (and we probably won't) I can already see problems arising with this new system. Even if it is more realistic, it is more complicated! I'm not even convinced it is more realistic.....

I agree that weapon resizing could have used a better explanation, and some guidlines about how reach and weapon weight change with size. A few holes in the weapon selection needed to be filled. These are minor fixes however, the system didn't need to completely replaced with this clunky monstrosity IMO.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

So we took this:

Each weapon has a size. If that size is one category smaller than the character, the weapon is small, if its the same its a one-handed weapon, and if its one size larger its a two-handed weapon. A weapon two sized larger cannot be used by that character.

And made:

Each weapon can be made in any size, and is either light, one-handed, or two-handed. The size coresponds to the size of the character that it is made for. If the weapon is made for a character of different size, weilding it grants a -2 penalty on attack rolls. If the weapon is a one-handed weapon, and a character one size smaller than the weapon was made for uses it, they have a -2 penalty and must use 2 hands. If a weapon is two-handed, and a character one larger than the weapons was made for uses it, they have a -2 penalty and the weapon is used in one hand. A one-handed weapons cannot be used by a character two sized smaller than the weapons was made for, and a one-handed weapon cannot be used by a character three sizes smaller than the weapon was made for.

Hmm, I wonder which is easier to understand....

--Rabid Spikey

 

[Shader]

The point I've been trying to make to someone who likes this change is that the cases where these rules are needed usually come up less often - on the whole - than need to be the norm. As it stands, you change the way characters treat weapons and sizes etc, and may need to House Rule it to bring it back, whereas the other way around it would have been less hassle to House Rule it.

In my opinion - which counts for bugger all - this is akin to the facing/space change... The reasons they changed it come up seldom.

 

[drnuncheon]

So we took this:
<snip>
And made:
<snip>
Hmm, I wonder which is easier to understand....

Unfair, Spikey - if you're going to spell things out in laborious detail in your second example, you should do it in your first. "If the user is Small and the weapon is Tiny, then it is a light weapon. If the user is Small and the weapon is Small, then it is a one-handed weapon. if the user is Small and..." You get the picture.

Or, you could use the way that the new resizing has been explained in 3.5:

If the weapon is not the same size category as you, you take a -2 penalty for each size category of difference. The measure of how difficult it is to weild is also changed by one step per size category. If this would make it something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed, then the weapon cannot be weilded.

Simple. The so-called 'complexity' comes from people too locked into the 3.0 way of doing things.

J

 

[Ysgarran]

eek, that does seem very confusing at first.

but what it does do is help with the situations where a small PC wanted to wield a rapier ... now they can, they get a small rapier without taking some wierd exotic weapon feat house rule.

I think it's going to take some de/re- programming to get used to the terminology.

What is the damage on a small rapier?

Ysgarran.

 

[Storm Raven]

What is the damage on a small rapier?

Under 3.0 or 3.5?

 

[drnuncheon]

What is the damage on a small rapier?

1d4/18-20 piercing

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Unfair, Spikey - if you're going to spell things out in laborious detail in your second example, you should do it in your first. "If the user is Small and the weapon is Tiny, then it is a light weapon. If the user is Small and the weapon is Small, then it is a one-handed weapon. if the user is Small and..." You get the picture.

Or, you could use the way that the new resizing has been explained in 3.5:

If the weapon is not the same size category as you, you take a -2 penalty for each size category of difference. The measure of how difficult it is to weild is also changed by one step per size category. If this would make it something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed, then the weapon cannot be weilded.

Simple. The so-called 'complexity' comes from people too locked into the 3.0 way of doing things.

J

What? I KNEW someone was going to say that they weren't equivalent.

I didn't spell anything out in the laborious detail in the second one. Your little example is a little less wordy than mine, but it doesn't say that a large one handed weapon is a two handed weapon for a small creature, and vice versa. The new rules are much more complex than is really needed. Its that simple. They don't improve on the old mechanic, and they actually add complexity.

They paragraphs both explain it in the simplest language I could come up with.

--Irate Spikey

Edit: Go ahead and make a summary of the rules that is as complete as the old rules. See if you can make it shorter, or even close to as short, as my first example.